Digital.ai Agility vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Digital.ai and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Digital.ai is ranked #14 with an average rating of 9.0, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.1. Digital.ai holds a 1.6% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.6% mindshare. Additionally, 71% of Digital.ai users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Digital.ai Agility

Read 5 Digital.ai Agility reviews

1,024 Views
731 Comparison Views

71% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,236 Views
2,427 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Digital.ai Agility

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Digital.ai Agility are competing in the application lifecycle management and agile project management domains. Digital.ai Agility seems to have the upper hand due to its adaptive features and ROI satisfaction based on data comparisons.

Features: OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers comprehensive requirement management, test planning, and quality assurance integrations. Digital.ai Agility features advanced agile management tools, seamless collaboration features, and superior DevOps integration.

Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM could improve in reducing deployment time by enhancing cloud compatibility and streamlining infrastructure requirements. It can also enhance user interface adaptability and expand agile management capabilities. Digital.ai Agility could refine its traditional ALM features, enhance documentation, and expand its support for larger enterprise environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM / Quality Center typically has longer deployment times due to specific infrastructural settings needed, with a more structured support approach. Digital.ai Agility benefits from cloud-based deployment for a faster setup and provides agile-focused, responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM / Quality Center often involves a higher setup cost but offers extensive ALM solutions justifying the expense for traditional tool-seekers. Digital.ai Agility is noted for better ROI through flexible pricing and lower initial costs, aligning well with agile workflows, making it cost-effective for iterative project needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 848,716 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Digital.ai Agility

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

14th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Release Automation (6th), Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (9th), Value Stream Management Software (5th)

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

207

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Agility is 1.6%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Debbie Brey

Technical Fellow at Boeing

A scalable, full-package solution with a tech support team that bends over backwards to help

There is room for improvement in getting the analytics portion of the solution more integrated with the rest of it. The feature I would like to see is already in their newer licensing structure, and that's the live integration between Agility, Jira and Azure DevOps. That's the piece that I think is really valuable.

Read full review

Paul Grossman

Lead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate

Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.

There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Agility is highly flexible. It can do much more than what our client is doing with it. They use it in a defined way. Some at that company have a much broader knowledge of agile and SAFe, but they're given applications and a mandated way to work. We had to work within their parameters and provide an accurate transition so the data would be mapped and pushed through."

"For visualization capabilities, the automation capabilities make it possible to support the different personas. The features and capabilities are excellent and come with excellent support."

"It can generate reports showing a burndown chart, burnup chart, and the planned vs actual velocity."

"It allows my clients to have one central tool to manage their agile projects."

"With some of the other tools, you have to buy 20 different plugins to get to the same capability that comes with the basic Agility capability."

"It has a good response time."

"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."

"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."

"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."

"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"Improve how to create and track releases. Currently, I have to create child projects."

"The user interface can be improved by adding Save, Edit, Add, Cancel, and Return buttons to the popup windows that are displayed when you click on a child item."

"In my work as a contractor, it's always frustrating when a client has multiple software applications that don't talk to each other and they all perform the same function. That presents a huge challenge between their IT groups."

"The machine learning features are a new capability but could be improved. This is being worked by Digital.ai currently. Multicolor simulation, specifically, could be improved."

"There is room for improvement in getting the analytics portion of the solution more integrated with the rest of it."

"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."

"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."

"Return on investment isn't something I often contemplate. I have not seen many business cases around it."

"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."

"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."

"We would like to have support for agile development."

"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Comparing the pricing to other products, I think this solution is in the middle."

"You get what you pay for. Don't let your development teams dictate what the portfolio management team should use as the main tool."

"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

"The pricing is expensive nowadays."

"The licensing fee is a little expensive."

"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."

"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."

"It's a perpetual license."

"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

20%

Insurance Company

18%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Educational Organization

68%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...

See all answers

Comparisons

Jira vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 52% of the time

Jira Align vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText Deployment Automation vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 6% of the time

JIRA Portfolio vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 6% of the time

More Digital.ai Agility Competitors

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 20% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 19% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 13% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Digital.ai Agility

April 2025

Download Digital.ai Agility product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

VersionOne Lifecycle, VersionOne, CollabNet VersionOne, Digital.ai Continuum

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Overview

Enterprise business agility rests on agile planning that scales and has the flexibility needed to meet the needs of customers and the market. Digital.ai Agility enables organizations to scale up agile from the team level across the product portfolio, improve collaboration and efficiency, and deliver software that provides more value.

Digital.ai

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Siemens Health Services (HS), Cerner Corporation, Aaron's, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, Kelley Blue Book, AOL, Axway, Tideworks, bwin Interactive Entertainment, AG, Intergraph, Eos Group, PeopleCube, Liquid Machines

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Free Report: Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.